Friday, April 6, 2012

Evolutionists Celebrated This Prediction But When it Later Failed They Didn’t Care

Fifty years ago the revolution in molecular biology began to produce vast amounts of new data which evolutionists expected to be consistent with their already established evolutionary tree of life. And when they found such consistencies they claimed them as powerful evidence for their claim that the world just happened to arise somehow on its own is. As Niles Eldredge explained:

The basic notion that life has evolved passes its severest test with flying colors: the underlying chemical uniformity of life, and the myriad patterns of special similarities shared by smaller groups of more closely related organisms, all point to a grand pattern of descent with modification.

Likewise, Christian de Duve triumphantly declared:

All [organisms] are descendants of a single ancestral form of life. This fact is now established thanks to the comparative sequencing of proteins and nucleic acids.

And even the keen-minded philosopher Michael Ruse was certain of this interpretation:

The essential macromolecules of life speak no less eloquently about the [evolutionary] past than does any other level of the biological world.

But as more details emerged the picture became more complicated. In fact those macromolecules did not reveal such a grand pattern of descent with modification after all. They did not speak so eloquently about an evolutionary past. In some cases, for example, similar genes showed up in not so similar species, or not so similar genes showed up in similar species.

But evolutionists continued with their triumphant claims that the evidence confirmed their expectations. They explained the discrepancies with a range of special-purpose explanations. Sometimes these explanations called for mechanisms which had never been observed.

One of their popular explanations is that genes transferred between species, not via common descent but via extremely complex molecular mechanisms that export and import genes. Sometimes their use of this lateral or horizontal gene transfer mechanism is a real stretch. And in any case, their story calls for evolution to have created this incredible mechanism which then was so important for adaptation and the supposed subsequent evolution. In other words, evolution created evolution.

But none of this has stopped the evolutionists. Today they commonly use horizontal gene transfer to explain contradictory patterns, as evidenced by this sampling of paper titles:

Ancient gene transfer as a tool in phylogenetic reconstruction.

Convergent evolution: gene sharing by eukaryotic plant pathogens.

Evolution of patchily distributed proteins shared between eukaryotes and prokaryotes: Dictyostelium as a case study.

Evolution of four gene families with patchy phylogenetic distributions: influx of genes into protist genomes.

6 comments:

"An alternative and more plausible possibility is that the STC gene has been laterally transferred among phylogenetically diverged eukaryotes through an unknown mechanism."

Acts 17:22-24Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you. “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else.

The young specialist in English Lit, having quoted me, went on to lecture me severely on the fact that in every century people have thought they understood the universe at last, and in every century they were proved to be wrong. It follows that the one thing we can say about our modern "knowledge" is that it is wrong.…..My answer to him was, "John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that "right" and "wrong" are absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong.

For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship—and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.

Very appropriate and profound, Born Again.

As to the article, evolutionists cover all their bases, which is why the "theory" is UNfalsifiable.Even when contradictory evidence is produced, they twist it to claim it supports common ancestry evolution. That's not a scientific theory...that's a fairytale.

For example, if the most complex forms of life appeared at the same time as the least complex, this would falsify evolutionary theory. If the order in which life appeared was most complex to least complex, this would falsify evolutionary theory as well.

Either of these observations would require a completely new theory as to how the knowledge of how to build the biosphere was created.

So, no, evolutionary theory isn't unfalsifiable. That you think otherwise is a fairytale of your own making.

Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish"In Chen’s view, his evidence supports a history of life that runs opposite to the standard evolutionary tree diagrams, a progression he calls top-down evolution." Jun-Yuan Chen is professor at the Nanjing Institute of Paleontology and Geologyhttp://www.fredheeren.com/boston.htm

The unscientific hegemony of uniformitarianism - David Tyler - May 2011Excerpt: The pervasive pattern of natural history: disparity precedes diversity,,,, The summary of results for phyla is as follows. The pattern reinforces earlier research that concluded the Explosion is not an artefact of sampling. Much the same finding applies to the appearance of classes. These data are presented in Figures 1 and 2 in the paper.http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2011/05/16/the_unscientific_hegemony_of_uniformitar

Cornelius G. Hunter is a graduate of the University of Illinois where
he earned a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology. He is
Adjunct Professor at Biola University and author of the award-winning Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Hunter’s other books include Darwin’s Proof, and his newest book Science’s Blind Spot
(Baker/Brazos Press). Dr. Hunter's interest in the theory of evolution
involves the historical and theological, as well as scientific, aspects
of the theory. His website is http://www.darwins-god.blogspot.com/